Are Australian industries ready for the national adoption of BIM?...1 What is BIM? Building...
Transcript of Are Australian industries ready for the national adoption of BIM?...1 What is BIM? Building...
Are Australian industries ready for the national adoption of BIM?
Review of Literature
JENNIFER LYNN SALCEDO Bachelor of Architectural Computing (Hons.) 2012
Built Environment, University of New South Wales, Sydney
Tables of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
1 What is BIM? ............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
2 Analysing the progression of BIM ................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Recounting the development of BIM .................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Comparing the acceptance of CAD to BIM........................................................................................................ 6
3 Identifying barriers for change .................................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Recognizing issues of BIM adoption ................................................................................................................ 10
3.2 Exploring the psychological aspects of change .......................................................................................... 11
3.3 Understanding how to deal with change ....................................................................................................... 13
4 Overcoming industry adversities ............................................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Investigating International approaches ......................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Reflecting on the current Australian approach .......................................................................................... 18
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................................................................. 21
Bibliography .............................................................................................................................................................................. 22
Introduction
For years, the attitudes towards change have greatly impacted the processes of advancement
and use of emerging technologies within society. An example of this is the implementation of
Building Information Modelling (BIM) for the future progression of design documentation in the
architectural, engineering and construction (AEC) industries. It is a technology that has been
exposed to changing perceptions of its place in industry practices for many years, with
particular positive growth in support over the past decade. This review of literature aims to
assess these differing attitudes towards adopting BIM processes, and how it as a consequence,
affects the progression of a national BIM initiative within Australia.
By investigating the benefits and issues of the technology, the paper attempts to identify the
core factors preventing its acceptance in industry and practice. Through the study of current
initiatives and approaches undertaken internationally by the United States of America and the
United Kingdom, guidelines for positive action are also established.
This research, as a whole, aims to analyse key barriers for change with the intention of
suggesting methods to resolve them, and subsequently answer the question: Are Australian
industries ready for the national adoption of BIM?
1 What is BIM?
Building Information Modelling is a term used regularly in the AEC industries. It is interpreted
differently by all people in industry, making it almost impossible to document one single
definition. By description, it is a method of 3D representation using symbolic or “meaningful”
geometric entities. This means that each entity within the model is embedded with various
pieces of information, for example what it is, dimensions, parametric values, materiality and can
sometimes include cost etc.1
Besides this key characteristic, it also enables a number of innovative design processes. One of
which is the encouragement of integrated practice or integrated project delivery (IPD).This
involves using the processes of BIM to aid collaboration between team members of a project.
These members could include design consultants, contractors, specialist trade contractors and
in some cases, the client. In this case, the model can be circulated between project members, to
analyse, edit, communicate ideas or run tests against it. Approaching projects in this way creates
a strong bond of team work and project manageability, whilst still maintaining a sense of
competitiveness.
To apply integrated practice, models need to be transferable for information to be shared. In
recent years, there has been an increase in the number of applications that enable these model
types, such as Autodesk Revit, Archicad and EliteCAD. To allow information sharing between
different software packages, BIM models are exported as a common standard – Industry
Foundation Class (IFC).2 Alternatively, all members can use the same software although this
may make collaboration frustrating and difficult.
1 2009b. National Guidelines for Digital modelling. Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation. 1. 2 Ibid, 2.
2 Analysing the progression of BIM
The process of design has changed dramatically within the past century, and as lifestyle changes
take place, so too does the way business and industry operate. However, some changes are more
difficult to adapt to than others. The transition towards the development of BIM is one that has
been anticipated for a long time and appears to be at its peak in revolutionising the way
Australian AEC practices operate. How it came to be, may help in unravelling clues about its
future.
2.1 Recounting the development of BIM
For the AEC industry the methods of representing and communicating designs has undergone a
number of changes since the use of primitive tools of pen, paper and ruler; adapting to the
rapidly changing digital age.
Since ancient times, people have been looking at ways to systematically and effectively
communicate. Gordon Higgott, in his review of Maya Hambly’s Drawing Instruments, 3 states that
Stylii, metal chisels, scale rulers and triangle rulers were among the many tools identified as
being used by the Ancient Greeks. Similarly, the Romans also used triangle rulers, compasses,
rulers and pens, whilst the Ancient Egyptians were known to use wooden corner rules. Though
brief, the review goes on to document Hambly’s key findings on drawing instruments,
introducing wing compasses and dividers used for creating circles in the 16th century, volutors
and ellipsographs for curves, as well as tee-squares and set squares for squaring and ruling in
the 19th and 20th centuries, relatively. The findings reiterated by Higgott are important and
informative when recognising the early history of drawing documentation. The review
interestingly suggests a natural reliance on tools to achieve accuracy (resulting in easier design
processes) meanwhile fulfilling human desires to technologically advance.
This sense of technological aid has also been an important case for design industries, and in
particular, architecture. For years, traditional draftsmen were skilled in the art of putting pen to
paper and preparing accurate technical drawings for architects and engineers. Like their
forefathers, they used a number of tools to achieve this accuracy including rulers, set squares,
3 HIGGOTT, G. 1990. Review of Drawing Instruments. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 49, 111-112.
drawing boards, protractors, compasses, and other drafting devices.4 Taking on theories of
drawing and perception, draftsmen are also skilled to manually document in both 2D and 3D.
In 1963, Ivan Sutherland from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology5 researched and
developed Sketchpad, the first CAD dedicated software that also utilised a complete graphical
interface. In his technical report, he explains how the program requires the user to generate 2D
drawings digitally using a light pen to both position parts of the drawings as well as edit them. A
set of push buttons allowed the user to control their changes such as to erase and move.
Sutherland reveals that it can be used in the fields of electrical, mechanical, scientific,
mathematical and animated drawings. Though this described software is not one that has been
further developed, this document has been particularly significant in pioneering the
development of CAD software for design practices. This is evident throughout the rest of the
1960s where companies such as General Motors, Ford and McDonnell-Douglas followed suit in
developing their own CAD software for design documentation. 6
It was in the 1970s that an evident shift from 2D to 3D began. Part of this transformation was
influenced by Kenneth Vesprille of Syracuse University in 1975. Vesprille had written a
dissertation exploring “Computer-Aided Design Applications of the B-Spline Approximation
Form".7 This research became one of the foundations for investigating CAD for the use of
complex 3D curves and surface modelling.8 His contribution to this technology made him a
catalyst of change, which introduced an industry keen to see the adoption of CAD begin.
However, even with an influx of books promoting the use of CAD during this time and strong
industry pressure and exposure, the rate of adoption by architects was still low.
By the 1980s, CATIA, Pro/Engineer, Unigraphis and I-DEA had become the leading CAD
software packages in 3D modelling, with Autodesk’s AutoCAD gaining strong popularity for 2D
drafting.9
4 BROQUETAS, M. 2010. From CAD to BIM: Part I - History of CAD [Online]. CAD Addict. Available: http://www.cad-addict.com/2010/02/from-cad-to-bim-part-i-history-of-cad.html [Accessed 14 May 2012]. 5 SUTHERLAND, I. E. 2003. Sketchpad: A man-machine graphical communication system. In: KUHN, M. (ed.). United Kingdom: University of Cambridge. 6 BROQUETAS, M. 2010. From CAD to BIM: Part I - History of CAD [Online]. CAD Addict. Available: http://www.cad-addict.com/2010/02/from-cad-to-bim-part-i-history-of-cad.html [Accessed 14 May 2012]. 7 CADAZZ. 2004. CAD software history, 1970s: Internal to international standard [Online]. Available: http://www.cadazz.com/index.htm [Accessed 14 May 2012 2012]. 8 BROQUETAS, M. 2010. From CAD to BIM: Part I - History of CAD [Online]. CAD Addict. Available: http://www.cad-addict.com/2010/02/from-cad-to-bim-part-i-history-of-cad.html [Accessed 14 May 2012]. 9 Ibid.
Although, after decades of technological development, it was not up until the 1990s that CAD
really took off.10 As the rate of PC distribution increased, so too were the ranges of availability
and complexity in CAD software. In 1993 AutoCAD, for the first time embedded 3D solid
modelling capabilities.11 Though AutoCAD began to dominate the market during that time,
companies such as Bentley Microstation soon became strong competitors. However, whilst the
development of technology had come a long way within the past century, unfortunately the
widespread adoption of CAD by architectural practices had been a slow one. This led to a
divided industry, whereby arguments posed it a threat to creative design.
Whilst years of encouragement saw numbers of support and industry adoption grow
throughout the 2000s, the challenging arguments resisting it carried on. But that didn’t stop the
development of the technology. From there began the transition from simple 2D and 3D CAD
drawings to object-oriented CAD systems (OOCAD). As Howell and Batcheler12 describes, it is a
modelling process which uses intelligent objects. This meant the creation of enabled parametric
capabilities, including variable dimensions and assigned rules. Every object within a model was
defined and contained information. For example, lines could be interpreted as being walls with
height, length and depth as well as materiality and its relationships with any other walls,
windows or doors defined. Abstract objects such as rooms and space, could also be identified,
described and referenced. These features were not possible with traditional 2D and 3D CAD
systems. BIM is the latest generation of an OOCAD system.
2.2 Comparing the acceptance of CAD to BIM
It is evident that the transition from traditional tools of pen and paper to CAD has been a slow
one. But does BIM share that same fate? How different or similar is BIM to CAD?
In Rita Gaidyte’s 2D and 3D Modeling Comparison, 13 she explores the main differences between
CAD and BIM. In this report, she identifies a number of differences between the two
technologies, including: 1) that BIM adopts a task-oriented methodology more quickly than an
object-oriented methodology, 2) BIM can be applied to many tasks other than just a
representation tool e.g. analysis, 3) CAD tends to have more documentation inconsistencies, 4)
BIM is a data-driven design tool, 5) CAD lacks the ability to consider parametric solutions, and
6) Unlike BIM, CAD does not store all its project related data in one file.
10 Ibid. 11 Ibid. 12 HOWELL, I. B., B. 2005. Building Information Modeling Two Years Later – Huge Potential, Some Success and Several Limitations. New Year, New Company, Newforma, New View of BIM [Online]. Available: http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue24/index.php [Accessed 14 May 2012]. 13 GAIDYTE, R. 2010. 2D and 3D Modeling Comparison. Norway: Gjovik University College.
Her study which aims to compare the two, also reveals that BIM is more so an advancement on
the CAD technology rather than a competitor. In conducting a modelling test of the Vilnius
Gediminas Technical University in Lithuania, using both 2D CAD software and 3D BIM software,
she concluded that whilst BIM costs more than CAD modelling and information input took
longer; it still excelled in suppling more detail in less time, providing more design options and
expressing different views with accuracy.14 From these results, the study provided direct insight
into the technical differences of the technologies and their limitations. Gaidyte’s research
demonstrates positive support for the implementation of BIM for architectural projects and
suggests that the AEC is ready for it.
But whilst research supports industry acceptance, history leading towards its development
suggests a different story.
It appears that even to this decade, pioneers are fighting for the adoption of CAD. An article that
clearly executes this is PTC’s, A Rational Approach to CAD Standardization. 15 Only recently
released in 2011, author Tom Quaglia argues the need for standardising CAD stating:
Today’s global economy means that many companies have no choice but to employ
CAD systems, and, thankfully, there are solutions available that support
interoperability between different CAD systems. These solutions include robust
data exchange capabilities, data repair, feature recognition, direct modeling, [sic]
and heterogeneous design-in-context (HDIC), which lets users create, view and
modify assemblies built with components created in different CAD systems.
However, for a growing number of manufacturers, the solution is to standardize on
a single CAD authoring platform.16
He goes ahead to address issues causes by a lack of standardisation, whilst exploring tools such
as visualisation technology, heterogeneous design, feature recognition (FR) technology and
direct modelling. The steps he outlines to effectively transition to standardisation include:
determining the standard, communicating the platform change and executing the migration.
Though disregarding the existing advantages of BIM claiming to supersede CAD, he explains that
in this process, benefits in reduced cost of training, documentation, and system administration;
faster product development cycles; and improved product quality become evident.
14 Ibid. 15 QUAGLIA, T. 2011. A Rational Approach to CAD Standardization. USA: Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC). 16 Ibid, 1.
Quaglia also provides two cases where standardisation would have been advantageous to their
projects; explaining that by standardising CAD users can easily share software licenses, training,
data and best practices. In this regard, his argument also proves relative to the BIM
implementation case and should be considered if made national.
Although taking into account the timely transition for industry acceptance for CAD and the
subsequent issues still faced, it can be assumed that BIM would receive a similar welcome. This
idea of resistance and slow rate of uptake is difficult to invert when articles so commonly
expose the issues attached to its implementation. Concerns over the disintegration of traditional
architectural design commonly surface articles and will be discussed further in chapter 3.
Nonetheless, it is also worth considering that in sidelining the shared issues of traditional
drawing practices, most of the AEC industry have adapted to using CAD, thus making it easier
for them to transition from one technology to another. And as Gaidyte suggests, the
transformation appears to be an improvement from using CAD as a mere representational tool,
to adapting to BIM as a simulation tool.
To BIM or not to BIM, This is NOT the Question: How to Implement BIM Solutions in Large Design
Firm Environments 17 is a journal article which explores the procedures best used for making the
transition from CAD to BIM. Through a series of comparative studies, Magdy Ibrahim of Ain
Shams University identifies the key categories preventing transitions from CAD to BIM. In her
introduction she notes in the 1980s, the technological development focus transformed from
how to digitally represent and present geometry (CAD), to questioning how to represent and
present the components of the buildings instead of just using lines to display them (BIM). She
then goes on to express that the two major categories she classifies as obstacles are: project
management and training organisation.
Under the project management umbrella, she exposes the different objects raised including: BIM
is yet another 3D modeller, bad experience memories, not understanding the full potentials,
efficiency and work flow questions, where/how to start and risk management. Ibrahim
identifies one of the key arguments made by CAD managers were:
“I can see it is a very promising technology, but not my project, not in this phase, not
on this time schedule, not on this budget, etc”18
17 IBRAHIM, M. To BIM or not to BIM, This is NOT the Question: How to Implement BIM Solutions in Large Design Firm Environments. Communicating Space(s), 24th eCAADe Conference, 2006 Volos, Greece. 262-267. 18 Ibid, 264.
This demonstrates a sense of scepticism towards moving forward with technological
advancement. In addressing work flow questions, Ibrahim also compares that:
The BIM project would need allocating more personnel in the early phases of the
project, which contrasts with the conventional way of allocating personnel when
large numbers are usually needed in the construction documents phase later in the
project.19
Her solution to this issue suggested adequate training to architects as well as project managers.
However, raising the solution of training also introduced a number of issues. The key concern
related to training is the process. Conventional CAD appeared to replace the drafting table and
pen, whereas BIM introduces new processes, interfaces and functionalities. Other concerns
related to the training of BIM as opposed to current processes of CAD included ubiquity of
conventional CAD users, vertical training of all levels, retraining newly graduated CAD students
and a lacking training plan.20
Ibrahim’s ability to critically analyse key issues affecting industry transition from CAD to BIM,
meanwhile exploring solutions to them, demonstrates a sense of optimism drawn from
scepticism. Although exposing issues of both CAD and BIM, she was able to support her
arguments with clear solutions, and as a result instil a positive mindset towards BIM adoption.
Though it is evident that history expects that BIM will share the same slow fate of adoption as
CAD, it has not stopped industry from pushing for a speedier result. With more and more
articles like Ibrahim’s being released, BIM appears to be integrating well within industry; and by
addressing key concerns will result in a dramatic change in the AEC industry.
19 Ibid. 20 IBRAHIM, M. To BIM or not to BIM, This is NOT the Question: How to Implement BIM Solutions in Large Design Firm Environments. Communicating Space(s), 24th eCAADe Conference, 2006 Volos, Greece. 265-266
3 Identifying barriers for change
3.1 Recognizing issues of BIM adoption
Ever since the introduction of BIM technology, there have been both believers and sceptics to its
benefits. However, this increasing trend in industry support over the past decade has not
shaken off all sceptics, with journals being released exposing more in-depth analysis’ of the
uptake of BIM in industry and the reality of its use.
Dominik Holzer’s paper, BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins21 reflects this scepticism through a composition
of research projects, fora, surveys and industry practice. Articles such as Holzer’s, though
critical have been crucial to the detail and development needed in building the national
framework for BIM implementation.
Holzer, one of the participants for the BIM in Australia22 fora in 2010, later wrote a paper
illustrating the cultural roadblocks of BIM implementation in Architectural practice. Its purpose
was to provide insight into impacts BIM poses on the current design industry. It reveals the
changing focus to software opposed to design, increased ambiguity of services, the effort and
effect over time debate, the underdeveloped case of integrated project delivery and the risks
and disadvantages of doing more than is required caused by its uptake.
However, while the article is supported greatly by secondary sources and qualitative methods of
industry surveys, public BIM fora and government funded projects, Holzer insists on his support
for the uptake in industry and pins down the issues to technological complications. The critical
reflections provide an exploratory look into the concerns many industry professionals have and
the basis for much scepticism and hesitation. The key issues mentioned in this article are
significant and should be strongly considered when implementing BIM within practice. Overall,
the journal article acts as a reflection on current concerns by Holzer based on his experiences
with the use of BIM in an architectural context. More research and case studies into these
concerns may provide better insight and possible solutions to them. It is an in-depth analysis of
the impact of BIM on cultural design processes, as highlighted by current industry users.
This comparison between potential and reality is an argument also posed by Howell and
Batcheler.23 In their article, Building Information Modeling Two Years Later – Huge Potential,
21 HOLZER, D. BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 9, 463-480. 22 STAR, G. BIM in Australia. BIM in Australia, 2010 Australia. Australian Institute of Architects, Consult Australia & Autodesk, 13. 23 HOWELL, I. B., B. 2005. Building Information Modeling Two Years Later – Huge Potential, Some Success and Several Limitations. New Year, New Company, Newforma, New View of BIM [Online]. Available: http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue24/index.php [Accessed 14 May 2012].
Some Success and Several Limitations, they conduct a study analysing the effectiveness of
claimed benefits of BIM when put into practice. Aimed at unfolding the truth behind promise
and reality, the factors they investigated included: the influence and use of BIM on significant
live projects, the lessons learned from earlier adopters, BIM being used as a multipurpose
model, and the innovative implementation of interoperability. Although they state that the
advantages do hold true for executing a single source for building information; for the factors
stated above, it is far from meeting expectations.
Previously undiscussed limitations are put to light, such as the size and complexity of files that
BIM systems create, the inefficient use of BIM solely for drawing files, the expectation that
everyone collaborates effectively when using a BIM system, and that no truly sound method of
file sharing exists. The research of this article clearly identifies issues faced within industry
practice and as a result supports the resistance of BIM adoption. The greatest fall-back realised
in this article is this inability to share the intelligent building model. In summary, the study
demonstrates inherent limitations of using BIM by a number of companies. Though few similar
articles are available which explore this, it is valuable insight into the concerns and
complications for industry practices.
The arguments and issues posed by both Holzer, and Howell and Batcheler, are significant to the
research against industry adoption in Australia. They highlight the barriers for successful
execution and provide reasoning for scepticism. In order for changes in industry to be made,
these issues will need to be addressed. Although, technical and organisational issues were
highlighted above, there are also other external factors which influence hesitation of adoption
and would need to be considered to effectively implement BIM within Australia.
3.2 Exploring the psychological aspects of change
Change is a hard experience for all involved. It requires time, commitment and encouragement.
The main reason for why undergoing changes fails is because individual resistance to change.
This anxiety towards change can be a result of many different factors, and based on the history
of the transition to CAD; implementing BIM is also affected by this.
Resistance to change can be seen in different ways. One is as a natural and normal process
where individuals tend to focus their attention to assessing extreme cases. There are three main
factors involved with organisational change including: cynicism, fears about change and
acceptance of change. These can appear in the possible forms of holding false hope that change
will actually happen, fear of loss of position and embracing benefits of change, relatively.24
On a broad social and emotional context, Dr. A.J. Schuler25 describes a number of reasons for
why people resist change including: 1) The risk of change is seen as greater than the risk of
standing still, 2) People feel more connected to other people who are identified with the old
way, 3) People have no role models for the new activity, 4) People fear they lack to competence
to change, 5) People may feel overloaded and overwhelmed, 6) People experience healthy
scepticism and want to be sure new ideas are sound, 7) People fear the hidden agendas among
would-be reformers, 8) People feel the proposed change threatens their notions of themselves,
9) People anticipate a loss of status or quality of life, and 10) People genuinely believe that the
proposed change is a bad idea.
He also injects that in order to gain commitment towards change, rational and emotional factors
need to be considered. His analytical adaptation on attitudes to change exposes some untouched
and mostly unspoken individual issues that appear to be applicable to the resistance against
BIM adoption. It is this resistance that prevents further progression in the application and
technological development of the multidisciplinary process. Although Dr. Schuler provides basis
for a broader societal context, it is not reasonable to have to consider all these factors when
implementing BIM. To narrow down the most applicable, a more business related approach
needs to be deliberated.
The 2005 Best Practices in Change Management by the Change Management Learning Center,26
which makes similar connections to Schuler, identifies reasons behind why employees and
managers resist change. Based on a business context, the study challenges the different methods
of business change and compares them against participants from around the world. It reveals
that the top five factors for employees to resist change include: 1) employees are unaware of a
need for change, 2) lay-offs are feared, 3) employees are unsure they have the skills needed for
successful changes to be made, 4) individuals feel comfortable with the current practices and
want to maintain the sense of accomplishment provided by the status quo, and 5) employees
feel that they are required to do more with less, or do more for the same pay.27 Whilst the top
24 NEIVA, E. R., ROS, M & DAS GRACAS TORRES DA PAZ, M. 2005. Attitudes towards organizational change: Validation of a Scale. Psychology in Spain, 9, 84-85. 25 SCHULER, A. J. 2003. Overcoming Resistance to Change: Top Ten Reasons for Change Resistance [Online]. Viginia: Schuler Solutions Inc. Available: http://www.schulersolutions.com/resistance_to_change.html [Accessed 13 May 2012]. 26 2005. Best Practices in Change Management Colorado: Change Management Learning Center. 272012. Top five benchmarking insights [Online]. Colorado: Change Management Learning Center. Available: http://www.change-management.com/06-bphighlights.htm [Accessed 14 May 2012 2012].
five factors for managers to resist change included: 1) loss of power and control, 2) overload
with current responsibilities, 3) lacked awareness of the need for change or the risks of not
changing, 4) lack of skills required to manage the change, and 5) fear, uncertainty and doubt
about the change.28
The factors stated for both parties, though different and based on a general business scope,
appear valid and applicable to reasons for why some individuals feel uneasy about adopting
BIM in current practices. From this report, it can be summarised that understanding the whys of
resistance can help with how to overcome it, and should be the approach undertaken by the
Australian AEC in relation to BIM adoption.
After analysing literature relating to resisting change, it can be interpreted that although there
are organisational and technical issues related to the uptake of BIM, for individuals, there are
also emotional issues involved. In order for significant change to occur within industry,
procedures for dealing with these issues need to be identified.
3.3 Understanding how to deal with change
As expressed previously, besides scepticism towards the technological benefits of BIM, there are
also concerns with the attitudes towards changing practices. Commonly, the technical issues are
used to mask the psychological issues at hand. In order to address these issues, a number of
solutions may need to be considered.
The Social Psychology of Organizations29 provides a theoretical approach to managing the
limitations of organisational change. Some approaches of managing organisational change
recommended by Katz & Kahn in their study include: providing information to all involved with
the change, suggesting individual counsel and therapy to bring out individual change, influence
by a peer group, providing training, supplying feedback and if all else fails, implementing
systemic change. These suggestions take into account the social and psychological issues that
cause difficulty in organisational change in an indirect manner, but because the research is
based on social psychology theories, direct applications to the adoption of BIM still need to be
made.
Supporting the claim that attitudes need to be addressed when making organisational changes
related to BIM is Michael LeFevre, who states that changing the mindset of decision makers is
28 Ibid. 29 KATZ, D. K., R. L. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations, New York, Wiley.
important in order to progress. No BIM for you: The Case for not doing BIM30 is an article that
aims to reason out the logic behind the uptake of BIM within industry practice in America. He
reveals that changing mindsets is the biggest challenge and to combat this, he suggests:
identifying political forces and creating a key ally, associate with like-minded, change ready
peers, hire or talk to a BIM guru, speak their language – attempt to remove fear, uncertainty and
discomfort, test out BIM and learn more, and celebrate experiences benefitting from BIM.
Despite not suggesting solutions for technical issues, addressing the attitude-related issues is
the first step in moving forward in national BIM adoption. To an extent, it is proposed that by
overcoming this negative attitude to change, a domino effect of support and further research
relating to technical concerns can also be resolved over time.
However, considering the logical methods of action posed by LeFevre, if these attempts don’t
influence change, Katz & Kahn’s introduction of implementing systemic change would become
appropriate and reasonable. Systemic change is particularly relevant for large scale cases such
as nation-wide change, as opposed to LeFevre whose concepts would appear ideal for changes
within a company or on a smaller industry scale. Systemic change essentially refers to clarifying
of the need for a change that affects all levels within a system or group.
As a reference, The Stages of Systemic Change31 was reviewed. Though there is no evident
supporting research, the article’s aim was to explore how systemic change is implemented
within the American education system.
The six stages of systemic change, expressed by Beverly Anderson in her article, are:
maintenance of the old system, increase in awareness, exploration, transition, emergence of
infrastructure, and predominance of the new system. She then goes on to identify elements
which aid the process of systemic change including: instilling a vision, gaining public and
political support, networking, identifying teaching and learning changes, establishing
administrative roles and responsibilities, and ensuring policy alignment.
These stages can all be related to the direction adopting BIM within the Australian industry
needs to employ. By using these elements as a guideline, a process of systemic change may
prove essential to promoting industry reform. Systemic change is a realistic solution when
considering the large scale dedication needed to ensure that the Australian industry is ready for
change.
30 LEFEVRE, M. 2011. No BIM for You: The Cade for Not Doing BIM. Journal of Building Information Modeling. 31 ANDERSON, B. L. 1993. The Stages of Systemic Change. Educational Leadership [Online], 51. Available: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept93/vol51/num01/toc.aspx.
As explained previously, there are a number of issues surrounding resistance to BIM adoption.
But as LeFevre, and Katz and Kahn, methods are available for overcoming emotional issues for
both small and large scale situations. For technical and organisational issues however, research
into worldly sources may need to be looked into.
4 Overcoming industry adversities
In reviewing how to combat technical and organisational issues, it has been suggested that a
number of studies need to be performed to encourage adoption and subsequently resolve them.
However, some argue that adoption will only occur if these technical and organisational issues
are first resolved. This causes a cyclic process of issues feeding each other, making it a difficult
task to work out solutions. In the following literature, different approaches are explored in
combatting adoption.
4.1 Investigating International approaches
Countries all over the world have been identified with meeting the demands of changing
industry practice. The United States of America (USA) is a country that has embraced the use of
BIM software within industry more than any other. BIM in Practice32 puts this down as a
consequence of the 2008-2009 economic recession. Companies are constantly trying to find
new ways to generate revenue whilst setting themselves apart from competitors. The study also
reveals that by adhering to Obama’s sustainability goals, it is inferred that both government and
industry support BIM use.
However, it also reveals other factors influencing the American AEC industry to rapidly meet the
changing demands. These included the consideration of outsourcing BIM to remain competitive
within industry, as well as the feeding the desires for companies to be more efficient, more
productive, more profitable and again, more competitive.
Within the study, U.S. CAD Inc. conducted a customer survey which confirmed that of those
surveyed, 63% of companies used BIM in the last 12 months, 76% of companies believed they
must build BIM expertise in order to compete effectively, and that trained staff and
implementation costs are key obstacles to adopting BIM within companies.
Although these results do not explain the spread of participants, the percentages are clear
enough to suggest that BIM exists within the American AEC industry, is being used at an
exponential rate and is “here to stay”33. In implying a stable presence within the American
design practices, meeting this trend becomes central to the change.
An article from the United Kingdom (UK) entitled Benefits and Barriers of Building Information
Modelling34 also statistically supports the claim that American companies currently have the
32 2009a. BIM in Practice. [Accessed 14 May 2012]. 33 Ibid, 3. 34 YAN, H. D., P. 2008. Benefits and Barriers of Building Information Modelling. 12th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering. Beijing 2008.
highest rate of BIM use at 26% compared to 14% in the United Kingdom and 5% of companies
in other countries.
Apart from this data, Han Yan and Peter Damian critically compare the benefits and barriers of
BIM use in the USA and the UK using data analysed from a questionnaire they conducted. As
previously stated above the USA is leading in industry implementation, whereas the UK has
spent years researching the technology. And from this questionnaire, the greatest benefit of BIM
to the USA was that it saved time, followed by reduced human resources, sustainability and
reduced costs, improved quality and creativity. In comparison to the UK who equally valued
reducing human resource, cost and time, followed by benefitting in improved quality and
creativity – interestingly disregarding sustainability.35
When considering the barriers of BIM, the UK identified cost, copyright and training to be the
issues with implementation. Meanwhile, it is interesting to note that the USA strongly believed
waste time and human resources was problematic.
From these trends, a relationship between the successes of BIM use within industry appears to
be highly relative to its country’s government goals. And although of the 70 participants, a
majority believed there was a future for BIM within industry, less than 20 were undecided and
less than 5 showed no support.
Yan and Damian conclude that in the UK, the BIM case is lacking in evidence for strong financial
benefit, causing weak support by industry.
However, in combatting that lacking support, the UK companies turned to the support of
government. Three years after the release of the Yan and Damian report, seminars, workshops
and great case studies on BIM implementation in the UK triggered an increase in support by
industry, but most importantly by government.
In an article by David Philp, BIM and the UK Construction Strategy (2012)36, closing the gap on
scepticism through the use of strong case studies also projected more value on BIM adoption
than ever before. Philp describes that the rapidly growing support shown by industry caused
the UK Government to respond by unveiling the Government’s Construction Strategy (GCS)
which pushes to mandate fully collaborative 3D BIM as a minimum within industry by 2016.
35 Ibid. 36 PHILP, D. 2012. BIM and the UK Construction Strategy. Available: http://www.thenbs.com/topics/bim/articles/bimAndTheUKConstructionStrategy.asp [Accessed 15 May 2012].
Philp argues that in order to aid this industry shift, great focus should be put on education and
training. He states that the UK industry is now preparing for the 2016 BIM switchover. Another
key issue raised by Philp is the concerning loss of data between handover and operation, which
he reassures is a key part of the GCS program. Luckily for the UK, the government’s decision to
prepare for mandatory BIM use has aided a rapid rate for its adoption within industry. The
balance in push from industry and pull by government provides an ideal support base for the
implementation of BIM within the UK.37
In summary, there are a number of key ideas drawn from methods of achieving adoption used
by other countries which would be worthwhile implementing within the Australian AEC
industry. Doing the research and exposing evidence to support claims is vital to convincing
decision makers as displayed with a UK context. Connecting government issues to relative BIM
solutions can also be beneficial to changing mindsets on a large scale. For the case of the USA,
addressing national concerns such as sustainability caused an instinctive reaction by industry to
adopt BIM processes, as well as the desire to keep up with rapidly advancing united industry
practices.
If there is anything to learn from these articles, it’s that identifying and addressing the needs of
key decision makers and catalysts, evidently increases the chances of implementing a national
BIM initiative in Australia.
4.2 Reflecting on the current Australian approach
In tackling industry adoption issues, Australia is still in the preliminary stages of action, with
many individuals still undecided on their support.38 However, this has not stopped industry
enthusiasts from trying to gain support through research, conferences, workshops and the
development of initiatives.
Many official organisations have developed studies and released documents to support the
benefits of BIM implementation. The Australian Institute of Architects, Consult Australia and
Autodesk released the BIM in Australia39 report in the December of 2010 highlighting how the
issues of BIM within Australia could be addressed, including leadership, management, software
support, legal, contractual, insurance and property issues. This report became influential to the
documents that followed it, and initiatives formed from it.
37 Ibid. 38 Based on observations and notes from the 2012 buildingSMART NBR Workshops in Canberra. 39 STAR, G. BIM in Australia. BIM in Australia, 2010 Australia. Australian Institute of Architects, Consult Australia & Autodesk, 1-14.
Prepared by Geraldine Star who attended a series of fora throughout Australia, the report
attempted to communicate the challenges and success of using BIM within industry. These
discussions, stimulated by case studies, summarised the valuable opinions of current industry
professionals who implement BIM into practice. The report documents these perspectives and
highlights the areas they are most concerned with. Subsequently, BIM in Australia has been an
influential source for guidelines and frameworks of numerous initiatives such as
buildingSMART.
The qualitative approach of reviewing current practice combined with case studies, secondary
sources and focus group fora were used to gather the information for this report. As the fora
were attended only by successful companies in Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane or Perth, there is a
degree of bias in the results. Although taking this into account, it does successfully give voice to
the opinions of different specialties within the AEC. The results gathered are still valid and
provides a good mix of positive and negative opinions by the participants. Whilst there is no
way to really deduce the levels of support given to each issue, the report suggests consensus
amongst participants.
The report consistently argues the key issues including: lack of support from training bodies,
lack of leadership by industry, the need to develop national standards, more client awareness
and education and software compatibility development – to support transfer synergies. From
this, justified conclusions can be made that there are numerous areas that need to be worked on
to achieve effective use of BIM in Australia, and that there is a lot of positive support for the
movement towards it by industry companies. Written for professionals and academics alike, the
report is organised well for its intended audience and is evident in its significance to the current
industry movements.
Many major reports, like Star’s, enabled strong opinions to be formed by individuals throughout
the Australian AEC industry. And although the BIM in Australia conferences had varied effects,
the necessary information need to progress was exposed. One such example of consequential
action was Holzer, whose paper was reviewed previously, had attended these fora and later
raised concerns regarding BIM’s effect on traditional design methods.
Meanwhile organisations such as buildingSMART used other influential documents as a basis
for their research towards national change. Based on a report by the Built Environment
Industry and Innovation Council (BEIIC) and commissioned by the Federal Government, the
macroeconomic significance of BIM created foundations for accelerating national adoption
initiative. In order to aid this process, a several factors of constraint were highlighted, thus
motivating action to find viable solutions.
In 2011 buildingSMART, formally the International Alliance for Interoperability, held a number
of conferences collating key targets of action aimed at developing “A National Strategy for the
Adoption and Implementation of BIM”.40 Extracting the constraints developed by the BEIIC
report, buildingSMART presented them during the conferences to transform them into key
priorities of action. These then became the seven initiatives including: 1) the adoption of
common BIM guidelines, 2) supply and support of production information and BIM libraries, 3)
industry agreements on compliance and certification, 4) improvement of information exchange,
5) management of procurement, legal and insurance issues, 6) support and improvement for
process change, and 7) introducing multi-disciplinary BIM education. The report reveals the
priorities agreed by both industry and government in relation to a national initiative and
demonstrates that the issue has been exposed within the Australian Government. Though the
report does not expose too much on future plans of action, it is a clear indication that there is
industry movement towards national adoption in Australia.
Consequently, this conference report was then followed by the official Focus for the BIM
National Initiative41 document in early 2012. The document highlighted the topic areas that
were to be discussed in a series of workshops held in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra, Hobart,
Melbourne, Perth and Sydney. For each initiative, the focus initiative was defined, current
activities highlighted and key strategies to ensure success. In investigating how national BIM
initiatives would unfold, it documents realistic objectives crucial to effective national adoption.
Based on this report and the methods proposed for change, it is evident that the prospects of
national adoption are practical and achievable – supporting the argument that Australia is ready
to implement BIM.
It appears that through the succession of documents expressed in this section, a systemic
change is assumed as the ideal avenue for projecting change. And based on the precedents of
countries such as the United Kingdom and the United States of America, a systemic approach
may be just what Australia needs to employ to fast track standardisation and adoption of BIM,
whilst maintaining a reputation for being a technologically-advanced country.
Taking all these factors into consideration, the Australian AEC industries are evidently on their
way towards national BIM adoption, and with government support, a digital future.
40 BUILDINGSMART 2011. A National Strategy for the Adoption and Implementation of BIM. MESH Conference Series. Brisbane, Sydney & Melbourne: buildingSMART. 41 BUILDINGSMART 2012. Focus Initiatives for the National BIM Roadmap. buildingSMART Australasia Chapter. Australia: buildingSMART.
Conclusion
In summation, it is evident that based on early drawing documentation history, mankind has
always strived for technological advancement and aid. However, adapting to changes can take a
long time, as it has been during the transition from pen, paper and ruler to 2D CAD.
Though it is hard to compare the progression of BIM acceptance to CAD adoption, Gaidyte
argues, BIM (which also supports CAD files) is a technological advancement of its predecessor
not a fundamentally new technology all together. Although the process in transition may be
more difficult than when adapting to CAD, if most of the AEC industry commits to it, then
increased adoption should result.
And as Ibrahim explains the existing resistance to change towards BIM technology, it still
appears to be integrating well within industry – providing optimism for change in the
architectural, engineering and construction industries. Regardless of the cultural and social
impacts of BIM, addressing the technical issues through systemic change allows for an
accelerated rate of adoption.
Using the United States of America and the United Kingdom as precedents for action, in order to
gain control over the direction of industry change in Australia, government support needs to be
achieved. The buildingSMART national BIM roadmap initiative is a developing foundation
enabling this to happen and brings Australian AEC closer to preparing for industry-wide
adoption. Through organisations such as this it is hoped that BIM adoption and integration
within the Australian AEC industry will continue to grow with the hopes of establishing a
government policy and industry standard to regulate its use.
Bibliography
2005. Best Practices in Change Management Colorado: Change Management Learning Center. 2009a. BIM in Practice. [Accessed 14 May 2012]. 2009b. National Guidelines for Digital modelling. Australia: Cooperative Research Centre for
Construction Innovation. 2012. Top five benchmarking insights [Online]. Colorado: Change Management Learning Center.
Available: http://www.change-management.com/06-bphighlights.htm [Accessed 14 May 2012 2012].
ANDERSON, B. L. 1993. The Stages of Systemic Change. Educational Leadership [Online], 51. Available: http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept93/vol51/num01/toc.aspx.
BROQUETAS, M. 2010. From CAD to BIM: Part I - History of CAD [Online]. CAD Addict. Available: http://www.cad-addict.com/2010/02/from-cad-to-bim-part-i-history-of-cad.html [Accessed 14 May 2012].
BUILDINGSMART 2011. A National Strategy for the Adoption and Implementation of BIM. MESH Conference Series. Brisbane, Sydney & Melbourne: buildingSMART.
BUILDINGSMART 2012. Focus Initiatives for the National BIM Roadmap. buildingSMART Australasia Chapter. Australia: buildingSMART.
CADAZZ. 2004. CAD software history, 1970s: Internal to international standard [Online]. Available: http://www.cadazz.com/index.htm [Accessed 14 May 2012 2012].
GAIDYTE, R. 2010. 2D and 3D Modeling Comparison. Norway: Gjovik University College. HIGGOTT, G. 1990. Review of Drawing Instruments. Journal of the Society of Architectural
Historians, 49, 111-112. HOLZER, D. BIM’s Seven Deadly Sins. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 9, 463-
480. HOWELL, I. B., B. 2005. Building Information Modeling Two Years Later – Huge Potential, Some
Success and Several Limitations. New Year, New Company, Newforma, New View of BIM [Online]. Available: http://www.laiserin.com/features/issue24/index.php [Accessed 14 May 2012].
IBRAHIM, M. To BIM or not to BIM, This is NOT the Question: How to Implement BIM Solutions in Large Design Firm Environments. Communicating Space(s), 24th eCAADe Conference, 2006 Volos, Greece. 262-267.
KATZ, D. K., R. L. 1978. The Social Psychology of Organizations, New York, Wiley. LEFEVRE, M. 2011. No BIM for You: The Cade for Not Doing BIM. Journal of Building Information
Modeling. PHILP, D. 2012. BIM and the UK Construction Strategy. Available:
http://www.thenbs.com/topics/bim/articles/bimAndTheUKConstructionStrategy.asp [Accessed 15 May 2012].
QUAGLIA, T. 2011. A Rational Approach to CAD Standardization. USA: Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC).
SCHULER, A. J. 2003. Overcoming Resistance to Change: Top Ten Reasons for Change Resistance [Online]. Viginia: Schuler Solutions Inc. Available: http://www.schulersolutions.com/resistance_to_change.html [Accessed 13 May 2012].
STAR, G. BIM in Australia. BIM in Australia, 2010 Australia. Australian Institute of Architects, Consult Australia & Autodesk, 1-14.
SUTHERLAND, I. E. 2003. Sketchpad: A man-machine graphical communication system. In: KUHN, M. (ed.). United Kingdom: University of Cambridge.
YAN, H. D., P. 2008. Benefits and Barriers of Building Information Modelling. 12th International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering. Beijing 2008.